Subject: Re: Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-05

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 16:01:32 -0500

On 5/15/15 10:14, Russ Housley wrote:
> In section 3, the first sentence says: "This section provides guidance
> on pre- or post-processing of video streams."  s/pre- or/pre- and/

Thanks, agreed.

> Maybe the intended audience will understand "Y'CbCr 4:2:0", but a
> reference would have helped me.

Yes, I do believe that the intended audience will be familiar with this 
as a term of art. I suspect that casual readers will be as adroit with 
web search engines as you are. I would be very hesitant to cite 
something as fluid as a wiki for a definition.

> The indented text in Section 5 should begin with "NOTE: ".

Thanks, agreed.

> In section 6, I assume that "320x240" is measured in pixels.  Please
> make the text clear.

Thanks, agreed.

> Section 6.2 says: "Unless otherwise signaled, implementations that use
> H.264 MUST encode and decode pixels with a implied 1:1 (square) aspect
> ratio."  Isn't this true for VP8 as well?

Yes, it would make sense to have this in the VP8 section.

> Other Comments:
>
> There are references to several outdated I-Ds.  Some of the references
> point to particular section numbers.  I did not check whether the
> updates had an impact on these sections, but someone should do so:

Good catch. This is the result of unexpected caching behavior in 
xml2rfc. Easy to fix.

>    - draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-09: -11) exists
>    - draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-06: -08 exists

These are the only documents with specific sections cited. I have 
verified that the references are correct with regard to the most recent 
version.

/a

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:16:15 +0300

Many thanks for your review again, Russ. Thankfully the down ref has been handled
now properly.

FWIW, I agree with Adam about Y’CbCr.

Jari